JUDGMENT

Faizan Uddin, J.-This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated July 22, 1988 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing the plaintiffs appeal against the judgment dated September 30, 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur setting aside the judgment and preliminary decree dated May 30, 1884 passed by the sub-Judge, 1st Class Malerkotla for possession by partition of the house in suit in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants-respondents No. 1 and 3 to 5 herein to the extent of 1/7th share each in the house in dispute.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants brought a suit for separate possession by partition of the house in suit to the extent of their share against the defendants respondents by contending that the house in suit belonged to their father Ishar Mal who died on 10.1.1960 leaving behind him his widow Dhan Devi, since deceased, three sons namely, Anand Dev, plaintiff/appellant No. 1, Bhushan Kumar Puri (defendant No. 2, respondent No. 3 herein), Rajinder Pal Puri (defendant No. 1, respondent No. 2 herein) and three daughters, namely, Gyanwati, plaintiff-appellant No. 3, Sita Devi (defendant No. 3, respondent No. 4 herein), Nand Rani, (defendant No. 4, respondent No. 5 herein) and Pushpa Devi, plaintiff-appellant No. 2. The plaintiffs case was that on the death of their father Ishar Mal each of the eight heirs named above became owner of 1/8th share in the house in question, being the widow, sons and daughters of late Ishar Mal. According to the plaintiffs, on the death of their mother Dhan Devi the remaining three sons and four daughters of Ishar Mal inherited 1/7th share each in the house in suit. But the defendant- respondent Rajinder Pal Puri one of the sons of Ishar Mal claiming to be the owner of 1/3rd share in the house sold out the same to the defendant respondent No. 1, Guriqbal Singh by a registered sale-deed dated December 2, 1977. The plaintiffs appellants took the plea that Rajinder Pal Puri had only 1/7th share in the house and he could not have validly sold 1/3rd share in the house to respondent No. 1 Guriqpal Singh.

3. The defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4, namely, Rajinder Pal Puri, Sita Devi and Nand Rani filed a common written statement admitting that the house in dispute belonged to Ishar Mal and after his death it was inherited by the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 and 4.

4. Defendant Rajinder Pal Puri admitted that he had sold the said portion of the house in dispute to defendant No. 5, respondent No. 1 herein, Guriqbal Singh but he took further plea that it was a fictitious sale to teach a lesson to his sons and wife who had become disobedient. The defendant respondent No. 1, Guriqbal Singh filed a separate written statement by traversing all the plaint allegations and took the plea that the house in question only belonged to the plaintiff No. 1, Anand Dev Puri and the defendants Rajinder Pal Puri and Bhushan Kumar Puri, the three sons of deceased Ishar Mal, each having 1/3rd share in the same who had affected private partition among themselves and each one of them had separate possession of 1/3rd share of the house and that Rajinder Pal Puri was the owner in possession of 1/3rd share which he sold out to him by a registered Sale Deed dated December 2, 1977 with delivery of possession.

5. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit and passed a preliminary decree for separate possession by partition holding that the house belonged to Ishar Mal and after the death of Ishar Mal and his widow it was inherited by his three sons and four daughters named above, each of them having 1/7th sahre in the same. The Trial Court also on evaluation of evidence took the view that there was no private partition amongst the three sons of deceased Ishar Mal and that the defendant respondent Guriqbal Singh had failed to prove that he was bonafide purchaser without hav